[clark]

Yes, it's mine. It is a Merlin Steadyicam. The mic is a stereo mic and works just fine. I have another shotgun mic with a dead cat but it isn't made for mounting on a hot shoe. I've only ever used the K-7 with shake reduction off on the steadycam. So I can't say what it's like turned on. Field recorders look handy to have.

very nice, the merlin is well out of my price range though (about £200 tops, and less is better)- and from what i've read it would be too stable, I prefer a bit of roll when turning- always on horizon is not really the effect i'm looking for

I was always under the impression the rode videomic was mono? Or at least recorded 2 channel mono...?

does the k7/kx have the problem with automatic gain control that the canon's have?



I know a lot of these questions I'll be able to answer myself as soon as I get a camera, but I will be spending all the money I have on this system, hence I need to know i'm doing the right thing, so i'm sorry if the questions seem nit-picky

---

Last edited by clark; 06-15-2010 at 09:51 AM.

[tuco]

I was always under the impression the rode videomic was mono? Or at least recorded 2 channel mono...?

does the k7/kx have the problem with automatic gain control that the canon's have?

I know a lot of these questions I'll be able to answer myself as soon as I get a camera, but I will be spending all the money I have on this system, hence I need to know i'm doing the right thing, so i'm sorry if the questions seem nit-picky

It's advertised as a stereo mic with a stereo jack. Haven't checked if its really two mono-channels but with a directional mic like this how do you really get stereo L/R sound from one mic I wonder. No gain control problem. The mic has a booster option but I don't need to turn it on. My XH-A1 has two XLR inputs and needs two mics to get stereo if not using the built in one. So when I use the shotgun on it like in the picture, it is mono.

[osv]

but now from what i've read about the gh1, avchd (h.264) is the preferred choice, although why that is I don't really know

h.264 is a much better codec than mjpeg, which is why it's the standard for most camcorders... it's better because it's far more efficient, which means that it retains a lot more of the picture information.

don't ever use random internet videos to judge codec quality, if you want to see how good a codec is, you need to download unaltered, source video clips that were shot from the camera.

once the source video clip has been transcoded to a quality intermediate codec like prores, you can step all over it, the fact that it was shot in mjpeg or h.264 is largely irrelevant.

in terms of pentax vs. canon for video, canon is the clear winner, by a long shot... canon is far from perfect, but it's miles ahead of the pentax video offerings.

ultimately, you should really think hard about buying any vdslr to shoot video with, because the platform is very immature, and difficult to use... if you don't know what film-style shooting is, you shouldn't be using a vdslr.

[clark]

h.264 is a much better codec than mjpeg, which is why it's the standard for most camcorders... it's better because it's far more efficient, which means that it retains a lot more of the picture information.

Clearly you know more than me on this, but from what i've read mJpeg is higher quality, but h.264 is a more effecient codec- i'm not going to be shooting hours and hours of footage, it will all be controlled pre planned shots mostly for 5 minute commercials for my design projects, so quality is more important than compression.

don't ever use random internet videos to judge codec quality, if you want to see how good a codec is, you need to download unaltered, source video clips that were shot from the camera.

I was only comparing vimeo footage to see how it 'could' look- with colour grading etc, even from vimeo footage it's clear that the kx produces smoother footage than the k7, the k7 is noisier even in daylight, which makes sense as the kx destroys the k7 for noise control in stills too

I have shot all 3 camera's myself now (although not in controlled circumstances)
and I think the gh1 wins it- 60p, OVF, certainly more camera than i'd ever need

ultimately, you should really think hard about buying any vdslr to shoot video with, because the platform is very immature, and difficult to use... if you don't know what film-style shooting is, you shouldn't be using a vdslr.

I just don't think it would make sense for me to buy a video camera, we have awful xacti's available to us in the studio, and I used to shoot on mini dv - but short films are becomming part of our course now, and i've always liked working with video and suddenly that combined with my passion for photographing motion and always thinking to myself 'I wish this was video' suddenly made me think I need an SLR which will record the motion i'm seeing through the viewfinder
and seeing as i'm in the market for a new SLR anyway it just makes more sense to me to get one

plus it's not as big a commitment (financially or practically), videography will probably form half of my camera's output, but i'm predominantly a designer, not a filmmaker (although I have applied to a filmmaking club, and i've been working on SFX/compositing and editing for a few years now, so I know my way around film, but i've never really shot before), so I can't really have an £8000 ex3 just laying around in my room not being used, but my SLR gets used everyday, and to be able to film with it would make such a difference to my work, ideally i'd submit all my research and development in video format instead of just a photostream


I don't mind the workarounds, as I said most of my shooting will be documentary in planned environments, so tripods and a home made steadycam will be all I need probably

who knows, maybe i'll live to regret this desision, but at least even if I never use the video feature ever again, i'll still have an SLR


edit: also regarding the audio recorders, again these would be super useful even just for recording interviews etc, at the moment I record everything on my phone, not exactly a professional solution when it comes to presenting the footage

[tuco]

You can read about Motion JPEG on Wikipedia.

But one thing I've wondered. How do you compare codecs on the web. They've all been transcoded to another format. Vimeo converts your upload to a MPEG-4 unless you have a paid account and at their level of compression. So you could easily be looking at 3rd or more generation footage.

[osv]

Clearly you know more than me on this, but from what i've read mJpeg is higher quality, but h.264 is a more effecient codec- i'm not going to be shooting hours and hours of footage, it will all be controlled pre planned shots mostly for 5 minute commercials for my design projects, so quality is more important than compression.

higher efficiency = higher quality.

h.264 @ 24mpbs is much better quality than mjpeg @ 24mbps.

mjpeg is ancient dead technology... i used to transcode hi8 into mjpeg in 1994, where i edited it on my $3600 //fast video machine card.

I just don't think it would make sense for me to buy a video camera,

a vdslr is a video camera.

try to be specific about what you'll be getting with a vdslr that you can't get with a $700 hd camcorder.

before you start, be aware that there are $700 hd camcorders that record higher resolution than any vdslr on the market today.

[osv]

But one thing I've wondered. How do you compare codecs on the web. They've all been transcoded to another format. Vimeo converts your upload to a MPEG-4 unless you have a paid account and at their level of compression. So you could easily be looking at 3rd or more generation footage.

exactly my point.

ideally, you would spend $$ for pro encoding software like soreson squeeze, and do the comparisons yourself... or if you can't afford it, maybe read all of the columns that jan ozer has written.

[tuco]

mjpeg is ancient dead technology... i used to transcode hi8 into mjpeg in 1994, where i edited it on my $3600 //fast video machine card.

Not too dead. It's still being used in new cameras. And it has the potential to be very high quality actually. It depends on what bit rate you can get away with and what are acceptable file sizes for recording times. Years ago they had to really compress the JPEG to run on the devices but there is nothing stopping them from bumping up the quality by lowering the compression if they wanted to.

[osv]

bitrate is the great equalizer, so it's true that mjpeg can look good if the bitrate is high enough... however, it's been well-documented out here that pentax made the mjpeg bitrate too high for the class of card that's recommended, so people are forced to spend more $$$ for better quality cards, that actually record above their class rating.

you need a lot of bitrate for mjpeg because it's an inefficient pig of a codec... look at the wikipedia quote for the new panny camcorders: "current AVCHD specification limits bitrate to 24 Mbit/s, video recorded in 60p/50p mode can reach 28 Mbit/s and uses Level 4.2, unlike Level 4.0/4.1 used by AVCHD-compliant camcorders."

higher level = greater complexity = more efficient = better picture quality = harder to playback when editing.

the canons vdslrs use low-complexity h.264, which is easier to edit on slow macs, but they have to raise the bitrate to nearly 40mbps, to make up for the low complexity version of the codec that they are using.

with mjpeg, you don't have any of that flexability with the codec... it's very primitive, the only thing better about it could be the price of the licensing.